From:                              John (Jack) R. Venrick [[email-masked]]

Sent:                               Monday, November 01, 2010 3:08 PM

To:                                   AJack R. Venrick

Subject:                          2010-11-1 Proof that a government's chief officer can be removed
from office by the courts - even after an election and inauguration

Attachments:                 obama-243x300.jpg; header_exclusive.gif;
president-barack-obama.jpg_size=380&imageId=9840562; 092310eight0b.jpg;
092310eight4b.jpg; 092310eightb.jpg; pelosione.jpg; pelosi2two.jpg;
clearchanneltwo.jpg; labillboard.jpg; birthcertbumper.jpg

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 9:13 PM

Subject: Proof that a government's chief officer can be removed from
office by the courts - even after an election and inauguration

Proof that a government's chief officer can be removed from

http://usjf.net/2010/09/judges-told-they-should-resolve-eligibility-dispute/

Judges told they
should resolve eligibility dispute

0
comments

Posted on Sep 10, 2010 in Legal Issues, Litigation over
Obama's Citizenship

Barack Obama

Provision of Constitution
‘may not be disregarded by means of a popular vote’

A district court’s ruling in a dispute over Barack
Obama’s eligibility to be president, if allowed to stand, would
strip minorities in the United States of
“all political power” and leave laws to be based
“upon the whims of the majority,” according to a new filing in the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The brief was filed by Gary Kreep of the United
States Justice Foundation, who is representing Wiley S. Drake, a vice
presidential candidate on the 2008 ballot in California, and Markham Robinson,
an elector from the state.

The case involves a long list of additional plaintiffs, including ambassador
Alan Keyes, who are being represented by California attorney Orly Taitz and are
filing their pleadings separately from those on behalf of Drake and Robinson.

The case challenges
Obama’s eligibility to be president, citing a lack of documentation,
and was the subject of hearings at the lower court level, where Judge David
Carter heard arguments.

However, Carter dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs suffered no
injury – they didn’t have “standing” – and that
the law left it to Congress to sort out eligibility issues instead of
a court.

Wrong on both counts, argues the brief
submitted just days ago to the appeals judges.

The brief contends that according to a 2008 court precedent, “a
candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the
inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that
doing so hurts the candidate’s or party’s own chances of
prevailing.”

“This interest is akin to the interest of an Olympic competition,
where one of the competitors in an athletic competition is found to be using
performancing enhancing drugs, but is not removed despite a violation of the
rules, and all of the athletes who had trained for the event legitimately are
harmed if that disqualified contestant remains as the contestants would not be
competing on a level playing fields,” the brief argues. “Obama entered this race without having meet
the eligibilityrequirements for the office of president of the
United States and, as a result, Drake has been injured because he did not have
fair competition for the office of vice president.”

Further, the brief argues that the government’s argument that Keyes
and Drake were in no position to win the election anyway, “does not
nullify their injury.”

“The injury here is … that these candidates were denied a fair
opportunity to run for the office because their competition was disqualified
from the outset,” the argument explains.

Furthermore, the case
should be handled by the court system, the brief insists.

“[The government] alleged … that this matter is
a political question and, therefore, unredressable by this
court,” the brief said. “Appellants do not seek to judicially place
a different political party in the White House, but, instead, only seek a determination as to whether Obama has met the
constitutional eligibility requirements, and, should Obama be
discovered to be ineligible to serve as president … appellants
seek a court declaration that the votes cast by the California Electors in
favor of the Obama/Biden ticket were of no legal force or effect.”

The brief cites the removal
of Thomas H. Moodie from the office of governor in North Dakota in the 1930s as
proof that a government’s chief officer can be removed from office by the
courts – even after an election and inauguration. Moodie had failed to
meet a state residency requirement to be governor. But was elected anyway and
installed, and ultimately removed from office over that failure.

The political branches “lack the authority to make” a
determination on a candidate’s ineligibility, the legal brief says.

“A provision of the Constitution may
not be disregarded by means of a popular vote of the people,” the brief
continued, “as there are specific guidelines for amending the
constitution of the United States … Even if the people of the United
States voted to elect as president a candidate who did not qualify
for the position, that vote would not be sufficient to overcome the
constitutional requirements for office and make that candidate eligible,”
Kreep argues.

“Because voters can and do vote for candidates that are liked by the
voters, even if those candidates may not be eligible for the position, the
voters do not have the power or the right to determine
the eligibility of a candidate. For the court to hold otherwise,
would be to strip non-majorities of all political power, as the laws
would be based upon the whims of the majority.

“Here, the underlying issue is one arising
under the Art. 2, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution, whether Obama
meets the eligibility requirements … As established above,
plaintiffs have standing to bring this action as they have suffered a concrete
injury in fact, caused by Obama’s ineligibility for the office of United
States president, for which the court has a remedy.”

The brief also notes that no other case has addressed these particular
circumstances, but to leave it unresolved is to court danger.

“If the current prime minister of the
United Kingdom David Cameron were to be nominated by
a political party to run for the office of president of the
United States, could he do so on the grounds that there is no one with the
authority to verify his status?”

The issue stems from the
constitutional demand that the president – unlike others in the
federal government – must be a “natural born citizen.”
WND has covered a multitude of challenges and lawsuits over
Obama’s eligibility. Some have alleged that he was not born in
Hawaii in 1961 as he has written, or that the framers of the Constitution
specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama’s father was a subject
of the British crown at Obama’s birth – from being eligible for the
office.

Besides Obama’s actual birth documentation,
still-withheld documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou
school records, Occidental College records,
Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School
records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from
the University of Chicago, medical records, his files from his years
as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any
baptism records and his adoption records.

Related
articles by Zemanta

Obama’s
Citizenship and the Chain of Command (outsidethebeltway.com)

Courts Martial
Defense – American Grand Jury (americangrandjury.org)

*************************************************************

BORN IN THE USA?

Hawaii Dems button-lipped on Obama
eligibility status

Doc missing statement
candidate 'qualified' under U.S. Constitution

Posted: September 25, 2010

10:10 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

It long has been documented that when
Barack Obama was picked by the Democratic Party to be its 2008 presidential
candidate, only one state – Hawaii – was sent a document
from Nancy Pelosi certifying that he was qualified under
the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

Now a series of blogs reports
are heating up the issue again, this time revealing documents that showed it
apparently was Hawaii's local Democratic Party that refused to include that certification on its
paperwork naming Obama as its candidate.

Even today, the Hawaii Democratic Party was staying
mum, declining attempts by WND to obtain a comment on why it handled the 2008
presidential race paperwork as it did.

(Story continues below)

The original report came from
a commentator at Canada
Free Press who revealed the Democrats failed to certify their candidate's
eligibility in 49 of the 50 states.

See the
movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this
unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery.

"In most states,"
writer JB Williams said at the time last year, "it appears that the DNC
never certified constitutional eligibility for Barack Hussein Obama, despite
their many claims of proper vetting and certification, all of which we now know
to be false."

As
WND reported, Williams released copies of two documents apparently prepared
by Democrats to certify  Obama as their nominee for president. One
contains language affirming his constitutional eligibility, filed in Hawaii
where state law requires the specific language, and another omits the language,
filed in the remaining 49 states.

Now a series of reports,
including those from blogger JBJD, the butterdezillion
blog, Obama
Release Your Records blog and the Fellowshipofminds
blog, are revealing the local state party's stance in 2008.

The issue also has been
addressed on a YouTube video already:

The
blog reports cite each other, as well as apparent Democratic Party
documents posted online from the 2000, 2004 and 2008 elections.

The images reveal the change
in wording that Hawaii Democrats adopted when Obama was their candidate.

In choosing Al Gore and Joe
Lieberman in 2000, this was their statement:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that
the following candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States
are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States
Constitution and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national
Democratic Parties by balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus
held March 7, 2000 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National
Democratic Convention held August 14-17, 2000 in Los Angeles, California."

Hawaii state Dem certification in
2000

The wording was almost
identical on behalf of John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004:

Hawaii state Dem certification in
2004

But in 2008, the words
missing include "the provisions of the United States Constitution."
It states, "THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President
and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under
the provisions of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential
Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008, in the State of Hawaii
and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2009,
in Denver, Colorado."

Hawaii
state Dem certification in 2008

At "Fellowship,"
the blogger explained that each state party must certify that their candidate
is constitutionally eligible to be president.

"What the Democratic
Party of Hawaii's 2008 Certification of Nomination left out are these words:
'of the United States Constitution and are the duly chosen candidates of both
the state and,'" the blogger wrote.

"In other words, by
omitting the above words, the Democractic Party of Hawaii (DPH) was signaling
the following: 1. DPH is merely certifying that Obama is legally qualified to
serve as president by virtue of the ballots of the Democratic Parties of the 50
states. The DPH is not certifying that Obama is legally qualified to serve as
president under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution! 2. The DPH is also
saying that Obama and Biden are NOT the chosen candidates of the state of
Hawaii," he concluded.

The butterdezillion blog
noted "the Hawaii Democratic Party actually ignored their protocols in
2008 in order to specifically NOT certify Obama's eligibility as they had done
for candidates in the past."

It was
Williams who earlier released copies of two documents apparently prepared
by national Democrats to certify Obama as their nominee for president.

The first includes a
verification that Obama and Joe Biden, then-candidate for vice president,
"are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States
Constitution."

One image of the certification for
Barack Obama's nomination, including the affirmation Obama and Joe Biden
"are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United
States Constitution"

The second form obtained by
Williams appears identical. They both have the same typographical error in
"though," but in this one, the verification of eligibility under the
requirements of the U.S. Constitution is gone.

Another image of a certification,
on which the certification of eligibility has been removed

Williams reported that
Republicans use a document universally that affirms their candidate's
eligibility and that Democrats have used the form that omits the certification
language in previous elections. But he nonetheless questions why the DNC
certified Obama's eligibility only in Hawaii.

Democratic National Committee
officials have declined to comment on the issue of the multiple images. Pelosi
and the White House also have declined to respond.

WND has reported on dozens of
legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen."
The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a
natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President."

Some of the lawsuits over the
dispute question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he
was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was
too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son
under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused
on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction
of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen.
The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from
qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is
Obama's decision to spend sums
estimated over $1 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that
would put to rest the questions.

WND has
reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes
his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records,
Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard
Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the
University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an
Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism
records, and his adoption records.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100813

BORN IN THE USA?

Trifecta: 3rd media outfit bans Obama eligibility ads

Clear Channel joins CBS, Lamar in dissing constitutional question

Officials with Clear
Channel Outdoor, which calls itself the world's largest outdoor advertising company, have joined two other
large billboard providers in
rejecting four simple words asking the question, "Where's The Birth
Certificate?"

Media buyers for WND have confirmed the company refused to accept a request
to purchase billboard space for a campaign that is the brainchild of Joseph
Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, who believes it is essential
to force Obama to produce hard evidence that he is, indeed, a "natural
born citizen" as the Constitution requires. He has called upon
Americans to donate money to the campaign, which has, thus far, raised about
$75,000 for the cause.

Farah maintains Obama has not proved he is
constitutionally eligible to serve as president as a "natural born
citizen," and suggests only the release of his long-form birth certificate
showing the hospital of his birth, attending physician and other details can
conclusively meet that test. Obama's presidential campaign released to select
news organizations only what is known as a "certification of live
birth," a document obtainable in Hawaii in 1961 by Americans actually born
outside the country.

Farah confirmed the decisions by three companies not to post the billboard question,
however, has not yet even dented the billboards available across America for
the campaign, and the number erected will be limited only by the donations to
the campaign.

The WND founder said he stepped up because no one else has.

"WND's reporters have investigated this issue more extensively than the
rest of the media combined – sending senior staff writer Jerome Corsi to
Hawaii and Kenya in search of evidence," said Farah. "We have
commissioned private investigators in Honolulu. There is simply no persuasive
evidence to affirm Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth. There is no hospital on
the island that will confirm the first black president of the United States was
born there. It's all conjecture. And no controlling legal authority in this
country has ever asked Obama to provide the proof."

Are
you motivated yet to join the billboard campaign and clear up the air of
mystery surrounding Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve?

The newest billboard up in the campaign is located near the Santa Ana
Freeway in Los Angeles:

"Where's the Birth
Certificate?" billboard near the Santa Ana Freeway in Los Angeles

"I want Americans to understand that this
billboard campaign will be successful with or without CBS and Lamar," said
Farah. "There are still millions of billboards available through other
companies eager to take this business. The only barrier to success is money.
And I am as determined as ever to keep purchasing billboard space as our budget
allows."

Another billboard is in Buena Park, Calif., on Interstate 5 between Los
Angeles and Anaheim, a heavily trafficked corridor reaching hundreds of
thousands of commuters every week. An earlier billboard went up in Louisiana.

Farah said the sensitivity by large
public corporations like the billboard providers demonstrates how important
this politically charged issue is to the future of the country.

"I never fully realized how dangerous it is that the media in this country are so afraid of
government power," he said. "How are Americans
supposed to become aware of controversial issues with this kind of heavy-handed
self-censorship in place throughout corporate America? That is the reality of
what we face, and the reaction to this campaign should illustrate it better
than anything else I've seen in my lifetime."

Clear Channel describes itself on its website as "the world's largest
outdoor advertising company with close to one million displays in 49 countries
across 5 continents."

In the U.S., it reports having just under 200,000 advertising displays.

The company issued a prepared statement in response to WND's request for a
comment, saying, "Clear Channel Outdoor
has a long tradition of being politically agnostic but also has a consistent
practice of rejecting copy that we view as a personal attack ad, such as the
Obama Birth Certificate copy."

The company also cited the Outdoor
Advertising Association of America, which has prepared a
statement dealing specifically with the "Where's The Birth
Certificate?" questions.

It states: "In the situation of the Obama birth certificate billboards,
there is no First Amendment question. The First Amendment applies to
governmental restrictions on speech, not on the decisions of outdoor
advertising companies. We strongly stand behind the right of our companies to
reject this or any other copy."

WND reported earlier Lamar
Outdoor already has begun losing business for dissing the advertising
campaign's question.

That
was shortly after Lamar joined CBS in prohibiting its salesmen nationwide
from accepting leases of billboards for a
campaign that asks the simple question, "Where's the birth
certificate?"

Florida real estate company
owner Fabian Calvo told WND that he's cancelling his contracts for two major
billboards owned by Lamar that he had been using to advertise his apartments.

Calvo, who also is a talk radio
host in the Tampa Bay area, said, "It's
just unbelievably wrong that not only would they deny WND the freedom of speech
they should have, but at the same time be fearful of this administration."

He said he is terminating use of the Lamar billboards immediately.

"We have other ways to advertise," he said.

The Lamar decision had been delivered to WND by spokesman Hal Kilshaw, who
said, "We think it's a settled matter. We think it's misleading to
indicate there's any question about the president's birth certificate. We
looked at it and we made the call."

Kilshaw said he read "independent media reports" and unnamed
"newspaper articles" to make his decision.

Last week, WND
reported CBS banned acceptance of the advertising on its 550,000 billboards
across the country.

The billboard campaign followed
one launched months earlier to collect the names on an electronic petition
demanding accountability and transparency on the issue. So far, that petition
has gathered nearly 400,000 names.

The campaign got a boost recently when WND White
House correspondent Les Kinsolving asked Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs,
why the president wouldn't release his birth certificate. Gibbs' response
was covered live on C-SPAN and by Fox News Channel and others – excluding
CBS.

It was the first time any member of the press corps
has publicly asked a member of the administration a question directly related
to Obama's constitutional eligibility for office as a "natural born
citizen."

Farah points out that
congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was
constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born
citizen," but no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's
claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Both the petition and the billboard campaign are part of what Farah calls an
independent "truth and transparency campaign."

Many have asked why Obama's name is not included in the billboard. Farah
said the matter was carefully considered.

"There are several reasons we chose the message: 'Where's the birth
certificate?'" he explained. "There
is only one birth certificate controversy in this country today – despite
the near-total absence of this issue from coverage in the non-WND media.
This is a grass-roots issue that resonates around the country, as our own
online petition with nearly 400,000 signers suggests. In addition, I like the
simplicity of the message. I like the fact that the message will cause some
people to ask themselves or others about the meaning of the message. It will
stir curiosity. It will create a buzz. I'm assuming when these billboards are
springing up all over the country, it might even make some in the news media
curious. And there's one more factor that persuaded me this was the way to go.

"Come 2012, campaign
laws will pose restrictions on political advertising mentioning the names of
presidential candidates. This one clearly doesn't. I would like
to see the federal government make the case that this is somehow a political
ad," he said.

Further, Farah said, the reaction to the campaign by billbaord companies
makes the point about how squeamish major media outlets are about questioning
powerful political leaders – especially those with whom they agree.

"Imagine the problems we'd have finding billboard space if Obama's
image or name was part of the message," he said. "CBS and Lamar are
afraid of four innocent words!"

Farah said the campaign was born of
frustration with timid elected officials in Washington, corrupt judges around
the country and a news media that show a stunning lack of curiosity about the
most basic facts of Obama's background – especially how it relates to
constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.

"As Obama transforms
this country from self-governing constitutional republic to one governed by a
central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no controlling legal
authority has established that he is indeed a 'natural born citizen' as the
Constitution requires," Farah said.

"Obama's promises of transparency have become a bad joke as he
continues to hide simple, innocuous documents like his birth certificate and
his student records."

New to the billboard
campaign on the issue of eligibility is a "birth
certificate" yard sign.

Your
donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made
online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of
amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or
1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should
be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify
the purpose of the donation by writing "billboard" on the check. In
addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant
contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah
about this campaign, e-mail WND.

size=1 width="100%" align=center>

Related offers:

Get
your "Where's the birth certificate?" bumper sticker here.

Get your own
"birth certificate" yard sign.

Get the most
comprehensive special report ever produced on the Obama eligibility issue.

·